Ben Goertzel wrote:
Richard,
My point was that there are essentially no neuroscientists out there
who believe that concepts are represented by single neurons. So you
are in vehement agreement with the neuroscience community on this
point.
The idea that concepts may be represented by cell assemblies, or
attractors within cell assemblies, are more prevalent. I assume
you're familiar with the thinking/writing of for instance Walter
Freeman and Susan Greenfield on these issues. You may consider them
wrong, but they are not wrong due to obvious errors or due to
obliviousness to cog sci data.
So let me see if I've got this straight: you are saying that there are
essentially no neuroscientists who talk about spiking patterns in single
neurons encoding relationships between concepts?
Not low-level features, as we discussed before, but medium- to
high-level concepts?
You are saying that when they talk about the spike trains encoding
bayesian contingencies, they NEVER mean, or imply, contingencies between
concepts?
Richard Loosemore
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=120640061-aded06
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
